Current numbers I hear is $90-100k for the 4 cylinder with $60k+ for experimental. This is engine only cost with FWF being extra. I can't find a TBO or TBR. With diesel weight a high concern and I assume the designers have compromised reusability to save weight, it would more likely a TBR. Also, with litigation costs, will engine be serviced in house with only DeltaHawk mechanics or like Rotax with invite only certified shops? Nonetheless, I don't see this trickling down to Cessna 172 types for quick some time if ever.
For aesthetics, you might consider replacing the black zip ties on the gear legs, positioning the brake lines, with either white or clear zip ties. They really don't stand out as black does ...
They used to tout , One hp/lb. 20 years later, still in development and specific lb/hp/hr are nothing to write home about. Be very leery of claims from these people. Great idea, poor execution.
I love the engine.... i'm just worried about the belt on the supercharger. Back in the day, I had a supercharger on an old toyota pickup... and it would blow the belt every 5 or 6 thousand miles. Since it was a 4-stroke, it would continue to run. (Poorly) But it got the point where I would put on a new belt every oil change. Since this is a 2-stroke design.... I'm sure it would stop with a thrown belt. I wish they would have used a toothed belt (no slippage) or a more rugged drive solution. Like a gear drive with an oil bath. (the standard to drive aviation accessories)
If the belt goes when it's running the turbo should keep it running if it can push air past the supercharger. That depends, of course, on the overall design i.e. is the supercharger bypassed once the turbo is spooled up. It looks like a positive displacement supercharger which probably wouldn't let air through if it stopped turning and wasn't bypassed.
@@JustinHuff_EOinDixie because it's a single cyl, with a reed or rotary valve, and it self pressurizes the case. The multi cyl with a supercharger isn't built that way.
He interest in to know the weight difference between this and one it is meant to replace as well as fuel burn and prices. Looks a good engine design though.
What they don't tell you about the wheels is that the struts come with a +6* camber on each main wheel/tire and that unless you are flying consistently at gross, you will find the outer 1/3 of the tire will wear down to the cord (while the inside tread is still almost full depth) in 150-200 hours and then have to flip the tire (or, you do like I did and have 2-4.5* shims made to reduce the camber to +1.5* for each wheel --- I've added nearly 500 hours to the tires since then and have been getting equal wear across the entire width of the tread. I typically fly between 1000 and 1150#.)
Beautiful -10 Build. I am sorry to hear about your engine, as a builder nothing can be more frustrating than when the delay is not on your end. You will get the engine soon and fly this baby all over the place. I also fly a -10, i'll see you around.
When you say the avionics are limited to what the mfg offers? I’m planning an RV12 LSA. Is there some legal regulation on which avionics I can use? First I’m hearing of that.
We are building our RV-12 as an E-LSA, which means we are building it exactly as per Van's specs, including their option of either a Garmin or Dynon avionics package. There are some advantages to building an E-LSA, but it would be best for you to search the FAA and EAA for the definition of E-LSA and decide if it's right for you.👍
Sounds like a nightmare…I have to see if my kit needs this done or mine came after this….I just crawled in the tail for the SB to put the brackets along the ribs in the tail cone…fun time😅
Forget the removeable wings, and put the fuel in the wings where it belongs in the first place. How may 12 pilots are taking the wings off their aircraft? I would be very curious to know. That tank right behind me, is one major reason the 12 is off my list for good!!
